Case 6028233/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs T Laguda v GTC Infrastructure Limited — 2026

Case reference: 6028233/2025
Decision date: 15 April 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto

Indexed: 18 September 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs T Laguda

Respondent

GTC Infrastructure Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out Mrs T Laguda’s complaints of sex discrimination and pregnancy and maternity discrimination against GTC Infrastructure Limited under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because they had no reasonable prospect of success. It had warned her on 28 January 2026 that it was considering striking out those parts of the claim and gave her an opportunity to explain why they should proceed or to request a hearing. She responded on 23 February 2026.

The tribunal found that the claim form, read together with her response, showed that the pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaint could not fall within section 18 of the Equality Act 2010, referring specifically to subsections (2) and (6). For sex discrimination, the document attached to her ET1 contained no particulars showing how the alleged unfavourable treatment related to her sex as a woman. Her response also stated that she did not pursue a standalone sex discrimination claim separate from race and pregnancy/maternity discrimination.

The tribunal found that striking out those complaints accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The rest of the claim was unaffected by this judgment. No monetary award was recorded.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Struck out	Sex	—
Pregnancy and maternity discrimination	Recorded from the judgment.	Struck out	Pregnancy and maternity	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.